Chris Matthews has the best political show on TV. All the tough questions, all the time. Would have loved to see him on that 9/11 panel, he would have killed.
M-F MSNBC, 11pm EST, 8pm WEST

| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
binladenforprez2004 |
THE OFFICIAL Chris Matthews "Hardball" Thread |
Lead | |
|
Sign up here for a piece of the best political analysis in the country. Bill O'Reilly, shmiley. Fox News sucks.
Chris Matthews has the best political show on TV. All the tough questions, all the time. Would have loved to see him on that 9/11 panel, he would have killed. M-F MSNBC, 11pm EST, 8pm WEST |
|||
Husky1987 |
Re: THE OFFICIAL Chris Matthews "Hardball" Thread | ||
|
Has Chris Matthews ever asked a question which contained less words than the answer he got from the guest?
|
|||
quietsurvivorfan |
Re: THE OFFICIAL Chris Matthews "Hardball" Thread | ||
|
If he is so good, why do all of the Fox News prime time shows kick the ass of all the other prime time news cable channels consistently and decisively in the ratings? Hmmmm
|
|||
MAppeal |
Re: THE OFFICIAL Chris Matthews "Hardball" Thread | ||
|
I can't watch Matthews anymore without picturing an SNL skit. He's over.
I watch Fox. |
|||
gbu28 |
Re: THE OFFICIAL Chris Matthews "Hardball" Thread | ||
|
To me, Chris Matthews has a combination of attention-deficit disorder and an advanced case of hysteria. He goes off the deep end almost like clockwork. He knows nothing about the real lessons of history. And now he's making nice with Pat Buchanan, the ultra-neo-Nazi.
Matthews is a sick joker. He and O'Reilly should be sent on a remote island together and allowed to beat the living shit out of each other. <<I can't watch Matthews anymore without picturing an SNL skit. He's over.>> And the SNL skits actually make more sense. Sad. |
|||
hadrons |
Re: THE OFFICIAL Chris Matthews "Hardball" Thread | ||
Quote: Matthews is known as "Tweety" because of his shocking blond hair and the way he bobs his (empty) head in those fits of hysteria ... this guy is a complete shill for his GE masters (like that fat stoogie Tim Russett) |
|||
newboy999 |
Re: THE OFFICIAL Chris Matthews "Hardball" Thread | ||
|
Sorry, thought this was the Dave Matthews "Speedball" thread.....nevermind.
|
|||
binladenforprez2004 |
I'm going to have to... | ||
|
Politely disagree with all of you. Chris Matthews is the top guy around when it comes to players of HardBall. You don't cross the master, it's not allowed my dear friends.
Toodaloo |
|||
Tiegs |
Re: I'm going to have to... | ||
|
Bin-
you can't possibly be worried about what any of these posters say, anyone who watches Fox "news" obviously hasn't much of a clue. That crap is written at a 3rd grade level (no wonder it appeals to the Bushies, it's a Bushie love-fest) |
|||
MAppeal |
Re: I'm going to have to... | ||
|
I said I watch Fox News....I watch CNN, MSNBC, ABC, BBC etc.
I read news all over the Internet..domestic, international. It's better to see all opinions than to limit one'e self. Yes? |
|||
pepsipepsi182003 |
Re: I'm going to have to... | ||
|
I watch hardball b/c its a better quality of infotainment then oreilly. I also think howard fineman is intresting to listen to.
|
|||
Bush Must Go |
Re: THE OFFICIAL Chris Matthews "Hardball" Thread | ||
Quote: The Ratings Mirage Why Fox has higher ratings--when CNN has more viewers By Steve Rendall Reporting on the ratings rivalry between the Fox News Channel (FNC) and CNN is often misleading--and almost always over-hyped. "Fox Tops CNN as Choice for Cable News," declared one typical headline (Chicago Tribune, 3/24/03). "Fox News Channel Continues to Crush CNN," reported Knight Ridder (Dallas Morning News, 2/3/04) in a column comparing the rivalry to a party primary: "Fox News Channel is winning the Nielsen caucuses." Last summer (8/17/03), the New York Times Magazine declared, looking back at the period of the Iraq invasion, "Fox was--and still is--trouncing CNN in the ratings." After exposure to countless similar stories published since January 2002, when Fox was reported to have surpassed CNN in the Nielsen ratings, one might naturally conclude that Fox has more viewers than CNN. But it's not true. On any given day, more people typically tune to CNN than to Fox. So what are the media reports talking about? With few exceptions, stories about the media business report a single number for ratings (often expressed two different ways--as "points" or "share"). This number is often presented as if it were the result of a popularity contest or a democratic vote. But it is actually the average number of viewers watching a station or a show in a typical minute, based on Nielsen Media Research's monitoring of thousands of households. The average is arrived at by counting viewers every minute. Heavy viewers--those who tune in to a station and linger there--have a greater impact, as they can be counted multiple times as they watch throughout the day. When an outlet reports that CNN is trailing Fox, they are almost invariably using this average tally, which Fox has been winning for the past two years. For the year 2003, Nielsen's average daily ratings show Fox beating CNN 1.02 million viewers to 665,000. But there is another important number collected by Nielsen (though only made available to the firm's clients) that tells another story. This is the "cume," the cumulative total number of viewers who watch a channel for at least six minutes during a given day. Unlike the average ratings number the media usually report, this number gives the same weight to the light viewer, who tunes in for a brief time, as it does to the heavy viewer. How can CNN have more total viewers when Fox has such a commanding lead in average viewers? Conventional industry wisdom is that CNN viewers tune in briefly to catch up on news and headlines, while Fox viewers watch longer for the opinion and personality-driven programming. Because the smaller total number of Fox viewers are watching more hours, they show up in the ratings as a higher average number of viewers. CNN regularly claims a cume about 20 percent higher than Fox's (Deseret Morning News, 1/12/04). For instance, in April 2003, during the height of the fighting in Iraq, CNN's cume was significantly higher than Fox's: 105 million viewers tuned into CNN compared to 86 million for Fox (Cablefax, 4/30/03). But in the same period, the ratings reported by most media outlets had Fox in the lead, with an average of 3.5 million viewers to CNN's 2.2 million. Even among Fox's core audience of conservatives, CNN has an edge in total viewership. A study by the ad agency Carat USA (Hollywood Reporter, 8/13/03) found that 37 percent of viewers calling themselves "very conservative" watch CNN in the course of a week, while only 32 percent tune to Fox. Show me the money Journalists who publish Nielsen numbers ought to explain that the data are not simply measures of popularity, and they are not produced as a service to journalists or the public. The figures are gathered to provide advertisers with complex data about viewer habits. It pays to remember that neither cable news stations nor Nielsen Media Research are primarily in the business of serving the public interest--both are in the business of delivering audiences to advertisers. Advertisers would rather see larger numbers of viewers see each ad a few times than have a smaller number watch the ad over and over again. But having a large number of viewers tune in for so short a period of time that they see very few ads is not desirable either. As Sherrill Maine, CNN's senior vice president of marketing, was quoted in the Cablefax (1/26/03): "We'd like Fox's [average] ratings; Fox would like our cume." But in the race between these two for-profit ventures, the bottom line is the bottom line: From their capitalistic perspective, the channel that gets more ad revenue is winning the real ratings war. Earnings for the two channels are a contentious subject--since neither network reports its revenues separate from its corporate parent, and each claims to earn more income than its rival. But many industry analysts say CNN still makes more money. Stock analyst Michael Gallant told the Chicago Tribune (11/28/03) that while Fox is growing faster, CNN is still earning about $200 million more per year than Fox (Television Week, 10/20/03). Furthermore, CNN apparently continues to command higher ad rates, or CPM. CPM stands for "cost per thousand" (using the Roman numeral), the price a television outlet charges advertisers per thousand television households reached by a commercial. Though Fox began claiming to have reached CPM parity with CNN last summer, CNN chair Jim Walton insisted that CNN's rate was still 40 percent higher (Television Week, 7/14/03). In interviews with Extra!, ad buyers for three different firms (all of whom declined to be named) confirmed that CNN continues to command a higher CPM, though their estimates of the gap in prices was less than half that quoted by Walton. One of the reasons for CNN's lead in CPM, according to the buyers, is the advertiser preference for lighter viewers. Such viewers tend to come from the most desirable demographics--younger, busier, more free-spending--and because they're harder to reach with ads, the law of supply and demand drives their cost up. One media buyer we interviewed analyzed the contrast between Fox and CNN in terms of programming and viewing habits, telling Extra!: "CNN is like news radio where people drop in for the news; Fox is like talk radio, where they stay longer for the opinion shows." An ad executive interviewed in Media Week last year (2/10/03) suggested that snob appeal was part of CNN's edge in the race for ad dollars: "There are two kinds of news advertisers. If you're talking cold remedies, you're buying eyeballs. Others are looking for an environment, an image. They're looking to reach decision-makers and influencers who watch news. If you're an image-oriented product--a BMW, Mercedes, Lexus--it's not even a question, you go with CNN. There's no comparison in the quality of the journalism--CNN is light years ahead in objectivity and reporting--and I don't think Fox's 'New York Post on TV' approach appeals to the most desirable consumers." Fox vs. everyone else Fox News Channel, then, is so far neither the choice of most people who watch cable news, nor the more successful business model. But the perception that Fox is "trouncing" CNN--based largely on the fact that the number Nielsen releases to the public emphasizes heavy viewers--is of great use to Fox, which trumpets these ratings as a vindication of its partisan, "fair & balanced" approach to the news. Reacting to a guest's charge that Fox had a right-wing bias, Brian Kilmeade, co-host of the successful Fox & Friends morning show (2/25/03), boasted: "Then what does that say about the country when they made us No. 1?" But even in the limited sense of average hourly watchers, Fox is only No. 1 among 24-hour cable news channels. Fox, like CNN, now reaches about 4 of every 5 television households, so comparisons with broadcast news shows are increasingly valid. And among all television news sources, Fox's performance is nothing to brag about. The O'Reilly Factor is the best-rated show on Fox, with about 2 million viewers a night (Daily Variety, 12/5/03). CBS Evening News, the least-watched broadcast network evening news show, routinely gets four or five times as big an audience, and that's seen as a ratings disaster. Fox's flagship news show, Special Report with Brit Hume, gets a million viewers on a good night-a few thousand more than the local newscast of New York City's WNBC (Hollywood Reporter, 10/1/03; Nielsen). Fox likes to position itself as the alternative to all the other news that's on TV. As Fox News president Roger Ailes likes to claim (New York Times, 6/24/01), "If we look conservative, it's because the other guys are so far to the left." If it's true that news can be put into two categories--Fox and everything else--then when Special Report airs, everything else beats Fox by at least 30 to one. www.fair.org/extra/0404/fox-ratings.html |
|||
claytonplace |
Re: THE OFFICIAL Chris Matthews "Hardball" Thread | ||
|
every time I see him now all I can think of is that guy on SNL, who yells at all the guests like he does, asks them a question and as they're about to answer yells again and interrupts them constantly. I find him and his show a big bunch of hot air.
|
|||
mr dooley |
Re: I'm going to have to... | ||
Quote: The sad thing is he's kinda right. Chris Matthews is one of the better pundits out there right now... which just shows what a horrible state the process is in right now. Compared to just about anything on FOX - or CNN for that matter he's light years ahead of the competition. You know things are going downhill when THE best political interviews and overall coverage are coming from the Daily Show! |
|||
hadrons |
Re: THE OFFICIAL Chris Matthews "Hardball" Thread | ||
Quote: Popularity equal Popularity Popularity does not equal Quality If this was the case, Titanic would be the greatest movie ever and Britney Spears the greatest singer. Fox News caters to a demographic (joe sixpacks, religious righties and other unsophisticated simpletons) that only wants to hear what they want to hear; they want to hear that things are going splendidly in Iraq ... that giving their rich neighbor a tax cut that will inevitably raise their own taxes later will in the end benefit them ... that believe the Bush administration propaganda. Telling people what they want to hear is a great way to keep them coming back and Fox does do a good job on flattering their viewers. Here's a piece of an article on Fox/Limbaugh type listeners: The niche is disappointed people, mostly men. Andrew Kohut, the highly regarded pollster for Times-Mirror, has described "the typical Limbaugh listener" as a "white male, suburbanite, conservative [with a] better-than-average job but not really a great job. Frustrated with the system, with the way the world of Washington works. Frustrated by cultural change. Maybe threatened by women." Somebody, in short, who is not as rich, powerful or famous as he thinks he should be, and who wants to blame outside forces. The talk-show hosts help. They blame cultural (but rarely economic) elites and the government for the world's ills and regularly reinforce the listener's sense of being scorned and ridiculed. |
|||
binladenforprez2004 |
Good call there pepsipepsi | ||
|
Fineman is really good, he knows his shit for sure. If he sayd "America is felling this way, or America is feeling that way", I believe him.
O'Reilly is just too far to the right. He has no middle views on issues. Reminds me of a Young Rush. Very cleaver guy though. David Shuster funny as hell. He's defintely miscast on this show, he should be the one on The Dailey Show!!! |
|||
quietsurvivorfan |
"false" ratings | ||
|
My quote was that the FOXNEWS PRIME TIME CABLE SHOWS consistently show that all 3 prime time cable shows kick the ass of all the other competitors each night on other prime time cable news shows. I did NOT represent that more viewers turned into Foxnews during a 24 hour period. Typical of a Bush Basher, spin anything to your view point.
|
|||
gbu28 |
Re: I'm going to have to... | ||
|
<<You know things are going downhill when THE best political interviews and overall coverage are coming from the Daily Show!>>
True...up to a point. But lately, even Jon Stewart is getting to be as much of an arrogant media asshole as the rest of 'em. Can't wait for Stewie to go "mainstream." |
|||
gbu28 |
Re: Good call there pepsipepsi | ||
|
<<Fineman is really good, he knows his shit for sure. If he sayd "America is felling this way, or America is feeling that way", I believe him.>>
Howard Fineman is one of those DC ignoramuses that knows next to nothing about anything outside of the Beltway. The only real reason he's on "Hardball" is because Matthews needs a straight man for his hysterical schtick. Then again, since I'll be heading for the DC area for at least the next two years, I could end up becoming a DC ignoramus too... |
|||
K80Paul |
Re: Good call there pepsipepsi | ||
|
Plus he's kinda cute
|
|||
SweetSue |
Re: Good call there pepsipepsi | ||
|
My father watches Fox almost exclusively and he's no right-winger. He is old, however. He votes Democrat and he's educated and he's in the Deep South. He leans a little to the left of center.
I think Fox is a little less-flashy than CNN. And the Fox people are less flashy, too. He watches CNN, too. But he will just leave it on Fox. It drives me insane to walk in and Fox is blaring. I just can't get into the Fox peeps, longterm. I sample some and then go back to CNN. |
|||